Persuasive Essay On Sex Education

Sexual education in schools has become a highly controversial topic over the past few years. Some people believe students should be taught abstinence-only education, while others believe students need the full on “sex talk”. While the sex education controversy may seem silly, it is very important that students receive the most efficient education possible. When it comes to education parents want their children to receive the most effective kind. This is also very true in terms of sex education. Sex education is very debatable right now as to whether students should be taught abstinence-only education or comprehensive sex education.

Additional research has explored the effects of abstinence based programs on actual behavior outcomes. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) compared the effects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, operationalizing effectiveness in terms of initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates. They found that teenagers who received comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only or no education were significantly less likely to report a teenage pregnancy. In addition, their conclusions mirrored Sather and Kelly (2002), finding that abstinence-based programs did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in sexual activity. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) actually concluded that comprehensive sex education was more likely than abstinence based to reduce the percentage engaging in sexual activity. Overall, the researchers showed that comprehensive sex education, including but not limited to contraception, did not increase the prevalence of sexual activity in teenagers or the risk of teen pregnancy, while also showing the that abstinence only education produced a higher likelihood of pregnancy.

According to advocatesforyouth.org, “abstinence only education teaches students to abstain from sex prior to marriage.” These program has been proven to be ineffective. Abstinence only education is ineffective because it is not conducive in reducing teen pregnancy rates and sexually transmitted diseases rates. Abstinence only programs are less likely to teach students about birth control and contraception and how to access it. These programs has not been shown to reduce teen sexual activity.

First off, why would you want to teach high school students about sex if you know it’s going to be too much for their young, innocent minds? Let’s face it, once when the teacher begins to talk about the males’ baby maker and the females’ “foo-foo” the students are going to start laughing, or getting very uncomfortable. Very mature children, won’t you say? Of course, the teachers are not going to call it “baby maker” or “foo-foo” they’re going to say the correct terms. Furthermore, sex education will most likely have to touch on the more sensitive topics like sexual harassment, or prostitution. Students having to hear about innocent people being raped is already crossing the line, and learning that women--and maybe men--are willing to have sex just to gain money. Might as well drop the class, or start skipping it.

In 2005, nearly half of all high school students have had sexual intercourse. Plainly stating that abstinence programs do not work (USA Today). Abstinence programs were beneficial many years ago, but since they are ineffective in delaying teen pregnancy, then teen pregnancy rate has increased. Abstinence programs teach the “no sex until marriage” clause, but they don’t teach teens about birth control and the consequences of having sex at before they’ve matured. Although many studies argue that abstinence programs are educational and beneficial, other studies will show that they don’t delay teen sex, they don’t prevent the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), and are a waste of taxpayers’

The philosophy behind abstinence-only policy implies that the greatest risk of informing students about their options for contraception would be that educators are condoning premarital sex. The risks that our students are already taking, however, are greater then policymakers are considering. It is generally accepted that the majority of sexual intercourse among young people remains unprotected (Westwood, 2006). Abstinence-only curriculum is not preventing adolescents from having sex; it is just making them naïve to the risks they are taking with their lifestyle choices.

Abstinence teaching only is not effective when trying to prevent STIs in teenagers. According to "Life123" (2012), ”While abstinence-only education programs have the support of many major national religious groups, a comprehensive sex education program in schools has the backing of a wide range of educational and medical organizations. Most proponents of comprehensive sex education argue that teens should be encouraged to abstain, but should also get information about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases, and how to prevent HIV” (Family).

Proponents for abstinence-only education believe that the abstinence-only message has contributed to the decline of adolescent sexual activity as well as negative related outcomes. In the 1990s there was a decrease in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. These proponents attribute these declining statistics to the abstinence-only message and claim that the declines cannot be accredited to increased

“Don’t have sex because you will get pregnant and die!” (Mean Girls). This famous quote said by Coach Carr, the health teacher, in the movie Mean Girls swarms the brains of teenagers all over the world. While this quote is quite extreme and is making a mockery of abstinence only programs, it’s analogous to what teachers across the nation are reciting to brainwash our youth. Abstinence-Until-Marriage programs are implemented in numerous high school and junior high schools across the country. While the title seems promising, “Mathematica [Policy Research Inc. (on behalf of U. S. Department of Health and Human Services) found that through] evaluation, [there’s] no evidence that abstinence-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence” (What the Research Says…). Teaching a course that isn’t beneficial is meaningless and merely a waste of time. These curriculums use fear tactics to scare children away from sex, reinforce gender norms, and provide inaccurate medical information. Schools that provide abstinence only programs are denying our youth factual, substantial knowledge and survival skills. Instead, these schools should consider an abstinence-plus program, also known as a safe sex contraception education, for their students.

Drilling into teens’ heads that sex is inherently bad will do no justice in the long run. Notwithstanding, abstinence-only programs do nothing but this, for they hold the opinion that making teenagers fear the consequences of precarious sex will prevent them from engaging in it. Advocates of both abstinence-only and comprehensive programs are worried that premature sex, even when wholly safe, will psychologically damage teenagers, but “there are no scientific data suggesting that consensual sex between adolescents is harmful”, yet abstinence-only education by itself continues to mandate the teaching that sex out of wedlock will do harm (Santelli et al. “Abstinence and abstinence-only education” 74). Unlike abstinence-only education, comprehensive sex-education attempts to focus on developing healthy mentalities for the benefit of their students. Promotion of healthy relationships between oneself and others will help make teenagers find trust between themselves and their sexual partners before participating in the act, furthermore causing them to make sure their partner does not have any STIs and is using contraception. Conversely, abstinence-only programs’ persistence with enthusiastically promoting abstinence leaves teenagers with little clue about their mental health. “Even those few individuals who remain abstinent until marriage are left

Many studies have shown that programs that focus on abstinence rather than contraceptive use are successful in reducing teen sexual activity”(Kim). She goes on to explain that abstinence is the best possible choice. Also that early sexual activity during teen years can have a risk of causing a contraction of a sexually transmitted disease, damage psychological constitution, lower academic achievement and cause unwanted teen pregnancy. All of these side effects are completely avoidable. The definition of “abstinence” is “Abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as expected standard for all school age children (Kim). It is emphasized as a healthy lifestyle and is explained by its effect on social, psychological, and health aspects. She cites that “Studies have shown that abstinent teens report, on average better psychological well being and higher educational attainment than those who are sexually active. She makes sure to repeat the claim that early sexual encounters can cause early irreparable psychological damage. A 2010 study in medical journal archives of pediatrics concludes that a abstinence only education reduced sexual initiation in the group of African-American adolescents. Two years later one third of the participants had initiated in sexual activity. “By

Abstinence only education is hindering the lives of teens in today’s world. Schools should stop teaching abstinence only education since, it increases the rate of teens having sexual relations with other people, it does not give students adequate lessons on preventing STDs, and the rate of teen pregnancy is higher for students who receive abstinence only education. As a nation we need to help teens protect themselves with this topic and most importantly approach it with caution. Many schools believe that abstinence only education is the most effective way to instruct students on the topic of sex when it clearly is not.

Reports display that abstinence-only curriculums do not decrease sexual intercourse by adolescent students. The United States Division of Health and Human Services publicized a report of abstinence curriculums. The authors revealed that conclusions from the study provided no indication that abstinence curriculums applied in elementary and middle schools are successful in decreasing the rate of adolescent or teenagers having sexual relations. Actually, teenagers did not benefit from all of the work and the millions of dollars that have been used into these curriculums. An additional study by Peter Bearman of Columbia University shows that over eighty-five percent of middle and high school students who vow to remain virgins until

Programs that encourage abstinence have become a vital part of school systems in the US. These programs are usually referred to as abstinence-only or value-based programs while other programs are called as safer-sex, comprehensive, secular or abstinence-plus programs which on the contrary promote the usage of effective contraception. Although abstinence-only and safer-sex programs disagree with one another, their core values and stand on the aims of sex education is to help teens develop problem-solving skills and the skill of good decision-making. They believe that adolescents will be better prepared to “act responsibly in the heat of the moment” (Silva). Most programs that have been currently implemented in the US have seen a delay in the initiation of sex among teens which proves to be a positive and desirable outcome (Silva).

As the United States becomes increasingly progressive, the age in which adolescents perform sexual activity is becoming younger. Education in the United States encourages abstinence to students in middle school and high school, but the resistance against adolescent sexual intercourse is futile because adolescents are historically rebellious at nature. Abstinence courses do not trigger any emotional response in adolescents nor do they personalize the situation for students, making them essentially futile. Students are not going to care about the dangers of sexual intercourse unless it directly affects them as an individual. In order for the resistance against adolescent sexual intercourse to be effective, abstinence